Lately, I've been doing the Sunday morning prayer for my church. I've decided to post them here as I've worked hard on them, and I'd like to place them in the public domain. I've tried to remove all the specifics, so they can be viewed as appropriate for any church. Please use them as you see fit.

Following is a proposal for a discussion I am moderating with a group of men from my church. I am interested to hear what my readers (haha) think on the subject as well. If you are interested in coming, email me and I'll fill you in.

Question for discussion:
What is the Christian's role in politics ?

A Humble Rebuttal:

    I have addressed Ehrman before on this blog here.  He is different from the other Authors I have thus far encountered as Ehrman is not an atheist, nor is he a hater of religion.  He is the chair of the religion department at the University of North Carolina and the default religious "authority" for many news outlets including NPR.  In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman presents the case that the scriptures we have come to rely on as the New Testament are not so reliable.  He shows, or attempts to show, that over the centuries scribes and other ne'r-do-wells have changed the original meaning of the documents so that we cannot know what they originally meant.  This is a reformed and sophishticated (please pardon the pun) version of the old "telephone" argument, which goes:  The Bible is like a centuries old game of telephone, in which participants make a line and whisper a phrase into one after an other's ear.  By the time the last person gets the message, and announces it to the group, it has completely changed from the original.  I do not have the intellectual tools to confront Ehrman head on.  As I make my way through his book I will do my best to pick apart his argument.  But what strikes me on first glance follows:

    God was active in the writing of the scriptures.  One of the crux's of Christianity is the "inspiration" of scripture.  In other words; while the specific words of Paul, Luke, Moses etc were their own, the ideas behind those words came from God.  This idea is represented in II Tim 3:16, II Peter 1:20-21  and Deut 29:29.  The Bible is God's special way of revealing himself to us.  It was written over a period of 2000 years, by more than 40 different authors.  God was not only present when the ideas were put down, but He has been present throughout time, ensuring that those ideas remain accurate into every time and every translation.  Ehrman obviously does not subscribe to this belief.  He must believe that immediately after having inspired each of the scriptures, God abandoned them and left it up to fallen, sinful human beings to preserve them for generations.  This is not consistent with the sovereign God represented in both the Old and the New Testaments.  Just as God was sovereign in the time of Abraham, Moses, King David, and Paul the Apostle, He was sovereign in the time of Socrates, Ceasar, Charlemagne, Henry VIII, and Napoleon, and He continues to be sovereign today.  And just as the scriptures were important to the people of the first century, so are they important to us today.  God would not have abandoned His inspired, special revelation, just as He has not abandoned us.

Here are a few better rebuttals to Ehrman.  I have not read them, but will try and figure out which one is best and purchase it.  Look for a review later on.

Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus

    By Dillon Burroughs from Dallas Theological Seminary

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

   By Timothy Paul Jones, published by Inter Varsity Press

Can We Trust the Gospels?

    By Mark D. Roberts

On Religion and Science:

Letter to a Christian Nation Part III

Or

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Notes from the last 11 pages of Harris's Book.

Religion, Violence, and the Future of Civilization:

79-83) Hard to find a usable quote here. Harris explains that most societies are aligned along religious lines, then lists a series of wars which he claims are being fought because of religion.

84-85) "Political correctness and the fear of racism have made many Europeans reluctant to oppose the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst." Two points; In 2005 (I think) France outlawed the wearing of religious paraphernalia in public places. This was to limit the dress of Muslim women, but it also included crosses. Second, This seems more a fault of political correctness and "fear of racism."

85) "The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a fantasy, and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge." This proceeds a paragraph in which Harris states the danger of Islam. I think I see where he is going here and my answer is this: Christianity is not Islam. I know Harris attempted to liken Christianity to Islam earlier, but he was not successful. He concludes this section by claiming that religious dialogue and "tolerance" are not the answer, that one faith will not be reconciled to another. For once we are in agreement. He has not claimed here that Christianity is violent like Islam, but he is leading us there.

Conclusion:

89) "You may even experience feelings of bliss while praying." Talk about patronizing. Clearly this man has never prayed.

89) "I would point out however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences--but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating nature." More evidence that humans have an internal need to cry out to, and imitate our creator. Not all people know His name, but every one wants to be near Him. What about the cosmos instilled this instinct? If we evolved by means of pure chance, where did this desire come from? Wouldn't this have been naturally selected away eons ago? If evolution constantly making things better, (Contrary to the second law), and Belief in anything greater than me is bad, then why isn't religion extinct?

89) "You are, of coarse, right to believe that there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe. But this does not make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about it's structure or contents any more respectable." OK Harris has been very careful to point out that science cannot answer questions about the reasons behind the universe, with this statement he indicates that it is OK to believe something about the meaning of life. But he's written this whole letter attempting to convince me that there is no meaning of life. He wants to have his cake and to eat it too.

90) Next Harris claims that religion must have served some evolutionary purpose, but that purpose is over, and we must move on. If this is true why doesn't evolution take care of it? He concludes with this comment: "There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape." Only an Atheist could say something like that. To suggest that rape is anything but sin requires a level of moral depravity one could only find by turning his back on God.

91) "This letter has been an expression of that amazement [that you believe in a living God] and perhaps a little hope." What hope does Mr. Harris have? By abandoning God he has abandoned hope, and he is encouraging us to do the same.

Letter to a Christian Nation Part II

or

You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals

Here are my notes on pages 46-79. Please feel free to comment, but keep in mind that they are just notes and thus very rough.

Who Puts the Good in the Good Book:

46) "Even if a belief in God had a reliable positive effect on human behavior, this would not offer a reason to believe in God." But we don't believe in God because it is "Good for society," We believe in God because He is there. Christianity's faith in God is not out of necessity for a harmonious society, it is because we are expressing our need to cry out to our Creator. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Faith in God is not bad for society, but it wouldn't matter if it was. Is Harris suggesting that I think that if I just believe in God every one will be happy? That's preposterous.

47-48) Here Harris describes the Tsunami in 2004 that killed thousands of people. This time he quotes liberal Christians who think that belief in God makes them feel good. He shoots this down with ease and I agree that if we based our beliefs on our feelings, we won't believe in a benevolent God for very long. He then quotes the Christians who believe that the Tsunami was a consequence of God's wrath. He says this makes sense, but then, how is God good? This is a question that has been asked for a very long time. I trust that what God knows is good, is superior to what I (or any other person) think is good. I don't understand why God allows bad things to happen, but if God is God, and I am His creation then I don't need to understand. God is not dependent on my approval to exist. Here Harris displays his relativistic definition of good.

49) "You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the appropriate guarantor of your moral intuitions. You intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular." Where does he get the idea that I believe in God and the Deity of Christ because I agree with Him. I believe in the Deity of Christ because it is reasonable. If I believe that Christ is God, then I must follow His commandments, and make His "moral intuitions" my own. First comes reasonable belief, then comes disciple hood. That is not circular. Here someone like Earlman makes a much better argument against Christianity.

50) "We decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another distillation of morality:...[paraphrases Deut 22:13-21] If we are civilized we will reject this as the vilest lunacy imaginable." Christians don't pick and choose the passages they like from the Bible, at least they ought not. I don't decide what is good in the good book, I trust God that it is all good. Deut 22:13-21 sounds heinous, but it is there to demonstrate extent of God's love and grace. See the book of Hosea.

50) "The choice is simple, we can either have a twenty first century conversation about morality and human well-being--a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophic arguments that have accumulated in the last two thousand years..."

"You and me baby aren't nothin but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."----The Bloodhound Gang 1998

The Goodness of God:

50-54) Here Harris describes several tragedies, hurricane Katrina is the central theme. His point is dramatically put, that a benevolent God could not do such heinous things. Again, God's existence is no dependant on any one's approval. Many terrible things happen that we do not understand.

54) "Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is--and, indeed how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all." Is this supposed to be comforting? If there is no God, then there is no reason. A place with no reason is...well it's hell. I would rather there be a reason that I don't understand, or even don't agree with, than complete randomness.

55) "But we have seen that human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness in the first place." No God is not good because I agree with Him. Here Harris shows the heart of his fallacy. Goodness is not defined by humans. Goodness is defined by God. Things happen that I don't understand, things happen that I don't like, but God is not seeking my approval. Funny that so many points in his book seem to be well thought out and carefully explained, but he leaves us to glean out the most fundamental assumption that is made; The question of what is Good, and what is not.

The Power of Prophecy:

57) Here he makes the claim that the writers of the New Testament simply looked back to the books of the Old and wrote their fiction based on the prophesies they saw. But the "Old Testament" as we know it did not exist until well after most of the New Testament was written. The books of the old testament were put together based on the scriptures that were most often quoted by Christ. In many cases the writers of the New Testament had little access to the books of the Old.

58) There is a discussion about the Gospel writers disagreeing on the virgin birth. Must do more research.

58-59) Apparent contradictions between Mark and Matthew as to when exactly Christ was crucified, Matt 27:9-10 attributes a saying to Jeremiah which appears in Zacharia 11:12-13

60) "The Bible contains nothing like this [specific prophecy] in fact it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you." This does not trouble me. The Bible was written by men living in the first century (NT). No where does the Bible claim to be the actual words of God. The word's are the authors (Paul, John etc). It is the ideas that are God's. The Canon keeps coming up in these arguments.

60-62) Now Harris laments the Bible for not giving us specific mathematics and the cure for cancer. God created the capacity for science and reason, the Bible God's answer key. It seems like Harris wants God to be like himself. He has measured his idea of God, and found it lacking. Harris therefore decided that God could not exist. God wants me to be like Himself. He measured my inmost character and found me lacking. So he sent His son to die, so that I could be made Holy.

The clash of Science and Religion:

First of all, there should be no clash between science and religion. Science is a tool that God has given us to better understand His creation and thereby Him.

65) "Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies."

Maybe so, but this is the fault of believers, not of God. I agree with him to an extent about religion. We Christians ought not to separate our lives into different areas. Rather we ought to go about our whole lives seeking the glory of God.

67) "It is time that we admitted that 'Faith' is nothing more than the licence religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." Wrong again. My faith in God does not come into play when I question if He exists. I need only marvel at the beauty of my wife, or the Grand Canyon to answer those questions. My faith is used when I question weather or not God will keep His promises to me. That faith is based on the fact that He has kept all of His promises in the past, and that He will continue to do so.

The Fact of Life:

This section talks about the "irrefutable evidence" supporting evolution, yet no specific examples are given. Harris just states that I would be a fool to question them. So in the previous section he scolds me for believing in God despite lack of evidence, then in the next he tells me that I am foolish for not accepting evolution, yet offers no evidence of support for evolution. Make up your mind. I won't defend creationism here, but may comeback to it later.

He further laments the ideas of intelligent design. Well I have a lot of problems with those theories myself and I will therefore take a pass here.

75) "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew or slithered upon this earth are now extinct. This fact alone appears to rule out intelligent design." Again he does not understand God so he therefore dismisses Him. Fortunately God is not dependent on our understanding of Him, or our acceptance of Him in order to exist. He follows with the idea that since things have gone extinct and "regressed," an intelligent being could not have been behind the design of the cosmos. But the second law of thermo is in perfect conjunction with scripture. Things were perfect when God created the earth, and they have become less so over time (as a result of sin.) Eventually the whole system will revert to chaos, at which time, or before, Christ will return and set things right.

78) Harris then concludes this discussion by describing a few "design flaws" in humans. These "Flaws" cause people to suffer. Thus, according to Harris, they are bad, and could not have come from anything intelligent. He has again confused his inability to understand God with the existence thereof. Also check out whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Religion, Violence and the Future of Civilisation:

It is late, and I am getting lazy, yet here comes the rub of the argument. I will defer to fresh eyes and mind. Tune in tomorrow.